I love restaurant dining, as much for the anticipation of culinary bedazzlement as the actuality. To me, the best part of any meal is opening the menu. At that point, anything is possible; nothing’s been overcooked, underseasoned, or otherwise ruined in the kitchen.
From Leslie Brenner’s American Appetite: The Coming of Age of a Cuisine.
…professional-eater salaries run the gamut. Since most work in food science or product development, those who taste for a living can be entry-level employees earning between $30,000 and $60,000 or senior execs raking in six figures, according to industry insiders.
In any case, many live the good life in terms of what they get to try, like trained wine drinkers or Godiva’s [products].
But others, like taster Ann Hollingsworth, have tested somewhat less sumptuous foods – in her case, hotdogs and other meats for industry giants like McDonald’s and Sara Lee.
The workload sounds especially appealing:
Generally, tasters are only used for about an hour a day total – often only for a few minutes at a time.
“You can’t just sit down there for four or five hours at a time,” said Caporaso, who has run panels for companies like Baskin-Robbins, Pfizer (when it had a food division), Nestle Carnation and Lipton. “You get fatigued.” [This reminds me of similar arguments I have heard about teaching!]
To preserve her palate (and her stomach), Koen generally only tastes three different pieces of chocolate a day, usually when the company is developing a new product. She also samples competitors’ chocolates.
In some unusual instances Koen will have to taste 50 chocolate pieces a day: “After all that decadence, she usually takes a week-long respite from chocolate eating.”
Just one kind of taster does not suffice:
Food and beverage companies need two kinds of tasters before their products hit the market.
The professionals are either outside contractors or internal food scientists, chefs and product developers trained to analyze flavor intensity, sweetness or bitterness, texture and product consistency. In-house tasters are often used because of convenience, their experience with that food and company secrecy. But they can become biased, which is why some businesses call on outsiders to do some tasting.
Consumer tasters are members of the general public who evaluate whether they love or hate a product, after the professionals have fine-tuned the formula.
There is also such a thing as a super-taster [N.B. I consider myself an unpaid super-taster!]:
…a “super taster” [has] a particularly discerning palate. Super tasters have between twice and four times as many tastebuds on their tongues as the average person and are picky eaters, according to Caporaso.
“Sometimes the super tasters are a detriment because they’re picking up these little nuances in the product that the average consumer can’t detect,” he said.
Life as a supertaster can be especially tough. One individual was told he had the talent of a supertaster, but he declined to pursue the profession. He said he could not stand the idea of having to taste so many random foods, rather than just eating what he likes. Some tasters have had to sample birth control pills and dog food. Here is the full story.
The Washington Times interviews co-blogger Alex about what makes for a good blog, and how blogging can get students to write better. The article opens with Kevin Brancato, a George Mason University graduate student and the driving force behind www.truckandbarter.com. As the article points out, blogs are just starting to be used in teaching. Someday I will teach a course where each student is responsible for writing a daily blog. I will evaluate the students by grading the blogs, no other test, paper, or quiz. Usually when I make that sort of claim it means someday soon!
The field of happiness studies has moved out of psychology and into economics. It is folk wisdom that money is no guarantee of happiness. And arguably it is happiness that we care about, not wealth. So rather than looking at aggregate wealth, an alternative research strategy asks people if they are happy. This may sound naive, but in fact people’s answers are correlated with their health, how much they smile, whether their friends rate them as happy, and information from brain scans. We should not so hastily dismiss questionnaire evidence about happiness.
Andrew Oswald, of the University of Warwick, is one of the leading researchers in this area. His home page offers a good range of readings in the area. One forthcoming paper of his, for the Journal of Public Economics, addresses the question of whether we are becoming happier or not. He finds the following:
1. Americans as a whole have not become happier over the last several decades.
2. American blacks have become happier over the last several decades.
3. American women have been the biggest happiness losers since the 1970s.
4. Being unemployed has a “happiness cost” of about $60,000 a year.
5. Being black has a “happiness cost” of about $30,000 a year. Both these figures can be interpreted in terms of a low happiness value for extra dollars, rather than a huge happiness penalty for being unemployed or black.
6. A lasting marriage is worth about $100,000 a year in terms of happiness.
7. Happiness is U-shaped with age, with the minimum coming at about 40. (Hey, wait a minute, I am 41 and happier than ever before!)
8. Relative income matters per se.
My take: I find least persuasive #1 and #7. Americans are happier as a whole because they are living longer and have access to much better medical care. Your chance of dying of a heart attack at age 50 is much lower than before. That being said, if you take a pre-selected group living under normal circumstances, they may not come across as much happier as their predecessors from earlier decades. So many of the benefits of the modern world come in the form of avoiding tragedies.
By the way, this excellent book review defends the role of the market in bringing us happiness.
A richer world also makes us happier by giving us better jobs. Read Oswald on how to find a job to make you happy. Here is his advice:
1. Work for a non-profit
2. Be a woman.
3. Be old (he suggests that your earlier failures tame your expectations with age).
4. Don’t get overqualified.
5. Avoid a place where the boss controls the pace of the work.
I’ve got #1 and #5 down to perfection, and I am working on #3.
Thanks to Mark Brady for directing my attention to the paper and the links.
It is bad for rats, or so it seems:
…new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science shows that caution can actually kill you. Sonia Cavigelli and Martha McClintock of the Department of Psychology and Institute for Mind and Biology at the University of Chicago found in a recent experiment that individuals who fear novelty–a condition scientists have named “neophobia”–are likelier to die at an earlier age than those who are unafraid of change. It is the first time, says Cavigelli, that a study has demonstrated that an emotional trait that shows up in infancy can shorten life span.
For this research, Cavigelli and McClintock followed the lives and fortunes of pairs of rat brothers for several years. The scientists chose their subjects by first establishing which of the rats were neophobic. To do this, they placed the young rats inside a bowl in a small room. Objects the rats hadn’t seen before–a rock, a metal box, and a plastic tunnel–were placed in each corner of the room. The rats the scientists deemed neophobic either stayed hunkered down in the bowl or left it only hesitantly, with hunched backs, stilted walks, and bristling fur. The rats who left the bowl quickly to explore the room and the various unfamiliar objects were dubbed neophilic.
And the results? These risk-averse rats showed a consistent pattern of stress throughout their lives and died at earlier ages. What does this mean for people?
A number of parallels exist between humans and their rat surrogates. Neophobia shows up in human infants as early as 14 months of age, and like the rats, fearful children have a faster and stronger hormonal response than children who are not afraid of new situations. It’s also been shown that if you are neophobic at a young age, you tend to remain that way throughout childhood. Cavigelli suggests, however, that individuals may develop strategies to avoid the negative effects of neophobia. “If you are a neophobic-type person, you might avoid any novel situations thereby minimizing that stress,” she says. Staying away from stressful situations could be a form of “self-medication.”…The wear and tear of stress hormones can cause neophobes to get sick more quickly, suggests Cavigelli. So if you know you’re a neophobe–and therefore more vulnerable to any bug going around–you might want to be seek medical intervention promptly in the case of illness.
Although it looks like the neophiles have an unfair advantage, they may not have it as good as it seems. In the experiment, Cavigelli and McClintock played God by controlling the environment of their subjects and essentially creating a safe universe where being brave didn’t get you into trouble. But real life, with its car accidents, plane crashes, and human predators does not always reward the fearless. Human neophiles might also have longer lives if we were all just rats in a cage.
The researchers suggest that it makes evolutionary sense for mothers to have emotionally diverse litters. In other words, there is an evolutionary reason why some but not all teenagers can act like such foolish idiots. See Slate.com for the full story.
The National Center for Public Policy Research has begun a series of briefs on “What Conservatives Think” in order to “help bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality.” Yes, but in which way are they crossing the bridge? Consider their brief on Reaganomics. It begins, “here are facts about the 1980s” and almost immediately heads off the rails, “from 1982 through 1989, the years President Reagan’s economic policies were in effect…” Hmmm, I thought we were going to get the facts about the 1980s? What happened to 1981-1982? Ah, Reagan’s policies weren’t in effect then – presumably these were the ghostly remains of the Carter years – but then logically Reagan’s policies must have been in effect until at least 1991, right? Apparently not.
The truncation of the Reagan years lets the NCPPR compute statistics from the bottom of a recession to the top of a peak thereby confusing cyclical with permanent gains. Numbers should not be treated as tools for partisan games but it’s especially galling here because the truth is in many ways more creditable to Reagan.
The 1982 recession was a result of Reagan’s policy – the policy to support Paul Volcker in wringing inflation and inflationary expectations from the economy. The 82 recession was terrible but the alternative, another goosing of the money supply, higher inflation, and a delay but not an avoidance of the day of reckoning, would probably have been worse. During the recession Reagan’s approval rating hit an all time low of just 35% but to his credit he stood firm. As a result, the economy fundamentally shifted from a high inflation/high unemployment economy to a low inflation/low unemployment economy. It was the recession of 1982 which laid the foundation for the next two decades of higher productivity and better economic policy.
President Bush reputedly asked his big-think guys to come up with a new vision to unify and motivate the nation and they came up with … a moon base? It’s so been there, done that. Going to the moon was one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind but I am not inspired by imitation. Are you?
Hence, I issue this challenge to the blogosphere. What’s your big-think idea to unify, motivate and inspire the nation? A moon-base will cost on the order of 200 billion so let’s economize and say that the idea should cost 100 billion or less – a better idea and 100 billion to spare! Ideally, the idea should be mostly free of politics and have a strong possibility of success given that the money is spent. Email me and I will post the best ideas with full credit.
In 1990 bicycles carried 70 percent of travelers in Shanghai. Now it is no more than 15 to 17 percent. Last month the city government of Shanghai banned bicycles on all major roads. Automobile sales in China are growing at a rate of 50 percent yearly. Bus service is considered to be of good quality and a subway network is being built. Upon completion it will have more miles of track than the subways of New York City. China has 7 of the world’s 10 most polluted cities. Here is the full story.
The New York Times writes of:
…a new regulation imposed by the European Union that reduces the allowable sound exposure in the European orchestral workplace from the present 90 decibels to 85. The problem is, a symphony orchestra playing full-out can easily reach 96 to 98 decibels, and certain brass and percussion instruments have registered 130 to 140 at close range.
The directive – issued last February and intended to protect all workers, orchestral musicians included – specifies a daily “upper exposure action value” of 85 decibels, amid a welter of other provisions. It acknowledges “the particular characteristics of the music and entertainment sectors.” It allows discretion to member states to use averaging, specifying a weekly exposure limit of 87 decibels, and to allow a transition period for implementation.
For me this article had a “jaw hits floor” quality. How about legislation saying that no composer can lose blood, sweat, and tears over a masterwork? Bach, after all, wrote the equivalent of twenty pages of music a day. He likely had some form of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Note that private solutions can alleviate the noise problem. Some orchestras increase the spacing between players. Some musicians use earplugs. Sometimes an orchestra will put plexiglass screens in front of the trombones. Or you don’t have to join an orchestra in the first place.
By the way, the trombones are not the only problem. The piccolo also has a negative effect on hearing.
And what about the United States?
In this country, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration takes a more hands-off attitude toward orchestras than the European Union. “We don’t basically get involved with them,” Francis Meilinger, an OSHA spokesman said. Here, too, orchestras fall under the agency’s general guidelines for the workplace, which allow a 90 decibel level over an eight-hour day, and a 97 decibel limit over three hours. Since American orchestras work relatively short days, and the peaks of sound are merely intermittent, they don’t represent a particular concern in this regard.
Imagine that, the EU having less sense than our OSHA. In any case, it remains to be seen how the measure will be implemented and enforced. Many musicians have announced that they plan to continue playing Wagner, Mahler, and Strauss, regardless of regulatory directives.
This report offers extensive information on job opportunities for Ph.d. economists. The good news: most of us are getting jobs. The average starting salary is just over $62,000. Macro and international are the fields most in demand. For 2003-4 there is one job in method/history of economic thought and a supply of ten in that same field. 91 percent of all schools pay moving expenses for newly hired professors. See the link for many more facts of this nature. Thanks to Newmarksdoor.com, an excellent economics blog, for the link.
Gregg Easterbrook debunks some recent doomsaying on this topic. You might have noticed a recent study claiming that more than one million species are being endangered by global warming. Easterbrook points out a calmer yet still environmentalist estimate of 12,259 endangered species, and that is from all causes, not just global warming. Easterbrook writes:
…the study in question is dubious because extinctions don’t seem to be happening at anywhere near the rate called for by other assumptions, mainly concerning habitat loss. Species-extinction theories say habitat loss, development, and logging should lead to rapid declines in species. All these factors are at play in the Pacific Northwest of the United States–and no animal species is known to have fallen extinct there in the last couple decades. (Several salmon species and other species of the area are imperiled.) This is significant because the Pacific Northwest is an elaborately studied area; far more is known about it than the tropical regions about which the Thomas study makes vague computer projections. Graduate students comb over the Pacific Northwest, knowing that tenure and academic renown will go to anyone who documents an animal species loss. And average temperatures are rising in the Pacific Northwest. For anything even remotely close to Thomas’s 1.25 million extinctions to be a hard number, we should already be seeing the bow wave in the form of dozens if not hundreds of extinctions in well-studied areas like the Pacific Northwest. Instead we see, um, zero.
Habitat loss and species extinctions are real problems, but let us not politicize science to scare up support for our favorite proposals.
Children who are born during economic booms live longer than their counterparts born during leaner times. The result holds for a Dutch data set of 3000 individuals born between 1812 to 1912. Here is a summary of the research. Here is the paper itself. A ten percent improvement in economic product added three years to the average life in the data set. OK, that is not so shocking on its own terms. The surprise is that the beneficial effects of wealth are most determined by the level of national wealth in the first seven years of life. In other words, good child care pays off for a very long time. And bad macroeconomic conditions take their biggest toll on the young and the elderly. If you are born in poor times, your chance of dying early has its greatest spikes during your childhood or after the age of fifty. It remains to be seen whether these results generalize to current levels of wealth in the United States. To be sure, a bad macroeconomy raises stress and damages health, but I know of no modern data on whether the effects on children persist through time.
Addendum: Ken Hirsch suggests that: “It appears that in wealthy countries, within the last forty years, recessions actually reduce mortality. See the work of Chris Ruhm and those he references:
“Good Times Make You Sick”, Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 24, No. 4, July 2003, pp. 637-658.
“Does Drinking Really Decrease in Bad Times?” (with William E. Black), Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 659-678.
“Are Recessions Good For Your Health?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 617-650.
“Healthy Living In Hard Times”, July 2003, submitted to the Journal of the European Economic Association, click here.
See also “Deaths Rise in Good Economic Times: Evidence From the OECD”, (with Ulf-G.Gerdtham), November 2002, submitted to the European Economic Review, click here.”
The references are from Hirsch, I have edited his remarks slightly so that the links flow with the text.
Where are the cuts coming from?
Overall, the cuts appear to be approximately as follows: $900 million from MediCal, $800 million from CalWorks welfare-to-work programs, $.6 billion in other health and human services programs, $400 million from higher education, $2 billion from primary education, $400 million from prisons, $1 billion from transportation projects, and $.2 billion in miscellaneous.
On top of that we have fee increases of $1.3 billion, much of that coming from casinos, and $4 billion of borrowing. If we can take all the numbers at face value (hardly ever the case with political budgets), a $14 billion budget shortfall will be covered.
The bottom line: Once you push through the smoke and mirrors, spending cuts amount to only a few billion. Still, this is the best political test we are likely to see of whether real spending cuts can be sold to the general electorate. If it sounds like Arnie is cutting too much budget meat for your taste, keep in mind that California state spending rose 44 percent since 1997-8. State bonds are near junk status and possess the lowest credit rating among the states.
Read here for the latest scientific discovery.